I
II
Christian Science, the
Religion of the Bible
Lecture by Judge Septimus Hntina,
nt tlio Phclan opera house, Monday
evening, Feb. 15th. Mayor Smith in
Btroduced the speaker as follows:
Ladies and Gentlemen: When I
first heard that thcro was to ho a lec
ture Riven In this opera houso on the
15th, I did not suppose at that time
that I should he asked to introduce the
speaker. I did not think, perhaps,
that ! might be in a position to hear
the treat that I believe I am able to
promise you. I take great pleasure in
introducing to you tonight Judge Han
na of Colorado Springs.
After the Mayor's introduction,
Judge Hanna made a few preliminary
remarks and proceeded with his lecture,
as follows:
Mr. Mayor and Friends: It is said
that brevity is the soul of wit. Be
lieving this to be true, then the intro
duction by your Honorable Mayor muBt
be considered witty. The remarks by
him were certainly very brief, but I am
thankful to him tor them. I told hit?
Honor this afternoon that I would con
sider my Bel f safe while in Alliance
this time as I would be under his care
and would not get out until the first
train, which will be in tho morning. I
notice that you have tacked another
letter to my name on the announce
ment cards displayed in the store win
dows of tho city, aud In order that you
do not think that I have changed my
name when I again stop in your city, I
might state that my name is spelled
with only one "h" instead of two, as
the name of a woman is spoiled.
Tho subject of my lecture indicates
fairly woll Its scope and purpose,
"Christian Science, the Religion of tho
Iiiblc-" Wo do not mean by this that
Christian Science is tho only religion
which claims biblical authority, but are
aware that it is one thing to claim
scriptural authority in a general way
and another thing to prove such au
thority from the Scriptures.
Before proceeding to this branch of
my remarks, however, and acting upon
an assumption upon which I am in the
habit of acting, namely, that thcro are
more or less present who are not of
our faithsome, maybe, who are in-
vestieatinir. but not thorouchly con-
', , vinced, some who are- skeptical as to
whether Christian Science is what it
purports to be, yet others who have
come for the first time to hear tho sub
ject publicly presented, I will say that
Christian Science has a text book. It
js a treatise on healing, through the
ipower of God or tho Divine Mind. Or,
4ia we claim, it Is a thorough exegesis
of the Scriptural method of healing all
manner ol diseases, aud of curing all
manner of sin through the understand
ing ot God as all-present, all-powerful,
all-wise. In short, it is a spiritual in
terprctation of the Bible.
The author of a book ol note and of
-value is a person of whom people de
sire to know, therefore I shall refer
briefly to the life and character of Mrs.
Eddy. It may not be amiss for me to
say that for nearly ten years, as former
First Reader in the Mother Church in
Boston and editor of the official peri
odicals, I have had opportunities which
enable me to speak intelligently of her
life and character as well as of her
labors and literary attainments.
Speaking from this vantage ground I
can truthfully say that, intellectually,
she is one of the most alert persons I
have ever known; that she labors in
cessantly aud unselfishly for the cause
to which she has devoted her life, and
that, notwithstanding her years, she
performs an amount of labor each . day
which, if known, would seem incredible,
euu if done by one yet In the adoles
cence of life- As to her religious char
acter, I speak my profouudest convic
tion when I say I believe it to be in
accord with the highest standard of
Christian living. Yet, notwithstanding
her highly spiritual nature, she is
withal an intensely practical person.
She keeps close watch of current af
fairs and acquaints herself with the
world's doings. She is, moreover, a
patriotic citizen. Mrs. Eddy, like all
great religious and moral reformers,
has been the target for misrepresenta
tions and sometimes malicious attack
The animus of these attacks is so ap
parent that they have fallen harmless.
Therq is in Boston u Mother Church
having a membership composed of per
sons residing in almost every part of
this country and of other countries.
The Mother Church has branch church
es aud societies to tho number of more
than one thousand, also situated in
nearly overy part of this country and
of other countries. Some years since
the Mother Church adopted a set of
church tenets. These became also the
tenets of all her branches. They ac
1 r lcwlfYA 4ltc Cirirfr iirnc t ltn inn
inspired word of God. Tlio ackuow-
lego the supromao'y and infinity of God
They acknowledge Christ and his di
vinity, and declare there is but 0110
Christ- They inculcate the omnipo
tence, omnipresence and omniscience
of God.
The last of those tenets enjoins upon
nil who subscribe to them the necessity
of watching and praying to have in
themselves the same mind that was
also in Christ Jesus, to do unto others
as we would have them do Unto us, and
be merciful, just and pure
The early records of this church
contain the following interesting aud
significant item: "At a meeting of the
Christian Scientist Association, April
19, 1879, on motion of Mrs- Eddy, it
was voted to organize a church de
signed to commemorate the word and
works of our Master, which should re
instate primitive Christianity and its
lost clement of healing."
We point to the twenty-eight years
intervening history in witness of the
correctness of that early declaration.
During these years many thousands
have been brought out of conditions of
sin, sorrow, grief, woe, distress, di
sease and sickness, who, without the
aid of this scientific Christianity, would
have remained in abandoned and hope
loss conditions. We do not hesitate to
say, therefore, as matter of current
history, that to a most wonderful and
gratifying extent primitive Christianity
has been reinstated and its lost clement
ol healing re-established.
Christian Science teaches that God
is in truth Almighty. If Ho is Al
mighty then surely He is correctly de
fined by the other terms Omnipotent,
Omnipresent, Omniscient, Supreme
and Infinite- He who is all powerful
is' always all poweiful. He who Is
omnipresent is never absent. He who
is all wise is never less than that, could
not bo by the very necessity of His all
wisdom.
Objection is sometimes made that
Christian Science is heterodox because,
as the objectors claim, it declares
against God's personality-
The Christian Science definition of
God does not describe a more imper
sonal'God, as that term, is commonly
used and understood, than does the
orthodox definition as contained in the
Westminster Confession of Faith. This
definition is substantially accepted by
all churches calliue themselves Evan
gelical, I quote it almost in full:
"There is one living and true God,
who is infinite in being and perfection,
a most pure spirit, invisible, without
body, parts, or passions, immutable,
immense, eternal, incomprehensible,
almighty, most wise, most holy, most
free, most absolute, most loving, gra
cious, long-suffering, abundant in good
ness and truth, forgiving iniquity,
transgression and sin. God hath
all life, glory, goodness, blessedness in
and of himself, and is alone in aud
unto himself all-sufficient. He
is the alone fountain of all being, of
whom, through whom, and to whom
are all things. His knowledge is
infinite, infallible, and independent
upon the creature, so as nothing is to
him contingent or uncertain-"
Words could not define a more im
personal God, if we accept words at
their ordinary meaning. If we give to
the words quoted from the Confession
of Faith their ordinary and rational
ineaning,Ve could not imagine a bet
ter definition of an impersonal God.
May I not fairly and honestly ask:
How can we think of a God who is
"infinite" as being composed of flesh,
blood, and bones, with all the infirmi
ties and limitations pertaining thereto?
How can we thus think of a God who
is "Spirit?" How can we thus think
of a God who is "eternal?" How can
we thus think ol a God who is "Al
mighty?" How can we thus think of a
God who is without "body, parts, or
passions?" I submit these questions
in no spirit of captious criticism, but
by way of sincere and earnest inquiry.
The Methodist Episcopal church
adopts substantially the Westminster
definition, but leaves out the word
"passions;" thus describing God as be
ing without Douy or parts." Ana
yet our orthodox ministerial friends
.including those of the Methodist church
oppose Christian Science largely
upon the ground that, as they claim, it
teaches that God is not a person. It
lemaius for our orthodox friends, not
for Christian Scientists, to explain how
a God who is"infinite,"who is "Spirit,"
who is "eternal," who is "without a
body, parts or passions." can he a per
son in the ordinary sense of the term,
or a merely "big man," as he is so
commonly understood to be.
The definition above quoted is found
in the Westminster Confossiou of Faith
of the Presbyterian church of the
United States; aud, as I have said, has
been substantially adopted by all the
orthodox Christian churches. It does
not appear in what is called the Shorter
Catechism. Tlic book from which I
quote bears date tgoO, so that it stands
as authority now.
I do not hositatc to say that the
Christian Science definition of God is
cvoti more personal, In the correct
sense of the term, than is that of the
orthodox churches as set forth in their
creeds or articles of faith. In evidence
of this I quote briefly from tho Christ
ian Science text-book- (The lecturer
here read from pages 116 and 330 of
Science aud Health,)
The assertion of God's presence aud I
power runs through tho Old Testament.
How could words express a more im
personal Being, viewed from the stand
point of moro anthropomorphism than
the following from the one hundred
and nineteenth IValm: "Whither
shall I go from Thy Spirit? or whither
shall I'flcofroin Thy presence? If I
ascend up into heaven, Thou art there;
if I make my bed in bell, behold, Thou
are there. If I take the wings of tho
morning, and dwell in the uttermost
parts of the sea; even there shall Thy
hand lead me and Thy right hand shall
hold me."
Jesus' plain words are of themselves
sufficient to settle any question as to
God's anthropomorphism. He dis
tinctly declares God to be spirit. (It
is wrongly translated in the old version
as "a spirit") and adds that those who
worship Him must worship Him in
spirit and in truth. While John, the
beloved disciple, as distinctly says,
"God is love."
In further corroboration of the true
conception of God and His power and
presence in His universe and in His
world, I desire to call attention to
another definition of God given by the
Psalmist, in the 103rd Psalm: "Bless
the Lord, O my soul, and forget not
all his benefits: Who forgivcth all thine
iniquities; who hcaleth all thy diseases;
who redecmeth thy life from destruc
tion; who crowneth thee with loving
kindness and tender mercies; who sat-
isficth thy mouth with good things, so
that thy youth is renewed like the
eagle's." This is cither mere abstract
poetical sentiment or else it is a de
claration of eternal truth, a definition
of the eternal God. We accept it as
the latter.
We believe in just such a God as the
Psalmist here sings of. A God who
possesses the power, to forgive and
who does forgive all the iniquities of
His children, a God who possesses the
power to heal and who does heal all
the diseases of His children, who re
decmeth their life from destruction,
who crowneth themselves eternally
with loving kindness and tender mer
cies. I cite this definition of God, not
because it stands alone; we find just
such conceptions running all thiough
the Scriptures if we look for them
Have we sufficiently looked for them?
Have we been generally taught of such
a God? On the contrary, have we not
been too generally taught of a God who
so far from forgiving all the iniquities
of His children, has provided a means
and place of eternal punishment for
such of them as fail to live up to a
prescribed course of conduct? A God
who so far from healing all the diseases
of His children, sends disease upon
them in order to chasten and make
them better? This manifestly was not
David's conception of God If it was,
his own plain words falsify that con
ception. In immediate connection with the
103rd Psalm I now call your attention
to a part of the New Testament record
which we consider as fundamental
Christian doctrine or teaching. I re
fer to the great commandment given by
Jesus to his disciples, called by some
Bible commentators his Great Com
mission to the Twelve. If it is true
that this part of the Bible is funda
mental Christian doctrine or teachiug
then surely those who desire to live
Christian lives cannot too much study
nor too well understand it. For pres
ent purposes, I quote the account con
tained in Matthew 10th:
"Go not into the way of the Gentiles,
and into auy city of the Samaritans
enter ye not; but go rather to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel.
"And as ye go preach, saying., the
kingdom of heaven is at hand.
"Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers,
raise the dead, cast out devils; freely
ye have received, freely give.
"Provide neither gold nor silver, nor
brass in your piirses. Nor scrip for
your journey, neither two coats, neither
shoes, nor yet staves; for the workman
is worthy of his meat." Or of his hire,
or wages, as it is elsewhere rendered.
This commapdmout is a unit. It is
not two commaudments. There is in
this language no authority to separate
or subdivide it. No more authority to
do this than there is to reject it as a
whole. The words relating to healing
sickness and doing the other works
there mentioued are uot only part of
the general commandment, but part off
the very sentence in which occur the
words relating to pleaching. Yet ve
have been taught to believe that while
11 part of this commandment was in
tended for all times and all peoples,
another part wa3 intended only for a
particular time and a particular people.
In other words, that the part relating
to preaching the gospel was to be
handed down to all the nations of the
world, until the heathen nations should
be converted to the Christian religion.
But that the part relating to hcalinc
the sick and doing the other works
mentioned was intended only for the
time ot Jesus and his disciples. Or,
in yet other words, the theoretical part
was to be perpetuated, but the practi
cal part, the doing of tho work, was to
be relegated to the dead ages of the
past, left away back beside the sea of
Galilee. Christian Scientists cannot
agree to this attempt to cut out or
make obsolete this part of the gieat
commandment. Had they no other
authority than this which I have quot
ed, they would teel compelled to main
tain that this commandment has not
been fully complied with, and shall
not be fully complied with, until the
sick are healed and the other works
mentioned therein accomplished, in
accordance with the teachings and
methods of the founder of tbc Christ
ian religion. But they are not com
pelled to rest upon this alone. This
commandment is substantially reiter
ated in the other gospels. I shall not
now stop to notice these particularly,
but I do desire to call your attention
to another commandment which Jesus
gave to his disciples, with the excep
tion of Judas Iscariot, who betrayed
him. After his crucifixion, and just
before his ascension, he gave to those
disciples a final commandment which
is recorded at the close of the book of
Matthew. I ask your attention to its
plainness as well as to its sweeping
character:
uo ye tneretore, anu teach all na
tions, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Sou, and of the
Holy Ghost.
"Teacljing them to observe all things
whatsoever 1 have commanded you;
and lo, I am with you alway, even
unto the end of the world."
This language is plain aud unquali
fied. If we accept it for what it dis
tinctly says we must conclude- that it
embraces all of that first great com
mandment, as well as all of auy com
mandment or instructions given by
Jesus to his disciples. Without wish
ing to criticise or condemn the views of
others, I must frankly say that I do
not see how any one can read these
plain words and give them a niomeut's
thought and continue longer to think
or to say or believe that auy part of
the first commandment or of any com
mandment ever given by Jesus to his
disciples was to be put aside or to be
come obsolete. Especially so when
we consider the closing words of the
final commandment. "Teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you, and lo, I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world."
In direct connection with Jesus first
great commandment and his final com
mandment, I desire to call your atten
tion to one more declaration made by
the Founder of the Christian religion
and it will be observed that with the
exception of the 103rd Psalm I have
quoted exclusively from the teachings
of the Founder of the Christian re
ligion, and this ought to be good au
thority for all professing Christians.
When we think of all the great works
that Jesus did during his earthly ca
reer, how he overcame and destroyed
all kinds of sin, how he healed all
manner of sickness and disease, how
he raised the dead, how he walked ttie
waves and stilled the tempest, and
how he did many other wonderful
works, I say, when we think of this,
and view things from the standpoint of
our limited mortal senses, we may well
be astonished at the words which I
now quote as they are recorded in the
14th chapter of John, 12th verse:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, he
that believeth on me, the works that I
do shall he do also." Plain words. I
do not see how words could be plainer.
It seems to be only a question as to
whether we shall accept them or reject
them. We might well suppose that
wnen jesus nau maue so startling a
declaration he would have ceased. We
might well suppose that when he had
in terms of such solemnity and plain
nees declared that those who believe
on him should do the great works that
he did, he nould have reached the ut
most limit ot maukind's hopes and
expectations and possibilities. But he
did uot stop there. He went further
and uttered these yet more astonishing
words: "And greater works than these
shall he do; because I go unto the
Father."
"Because I go unto the Father," as
be here says, and lo, I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world,''
as he says at the close of his final com
mandment. If these words are true,
we must believe that the Christ power
and the Christ spit it were never with
drawn from this world. Jesus went
unto the Father, into a better under
standing of the divine law whereby he
did his mighty works upon the earth,
and by virture of which those who be
lieve on him were to mIo not only the
works that he did. but greater. Here,
I say, is Jesus' great commandment to
his disciples. Christian Scientists are
not responsible for it, Mrs. Eddy did
not write it. It stood unrepealed, un
changed, unmodified, long ages before
her birth, long ages before the birth of
anyoue claiming the name of Christian
Science today. We are not responsi
ble for it, but we are responsible, to
gether with all other professing Christ
ians, for either accepting or rejecting
these plain teachings.
Again, in Mark 16th we read: "And
these signs shall follow them that be
lieve: in my name shall they cast out
devils; they shall speak with new
tongues; they shall take up serpents,
and if they drink any deadly thing, it
shall not hurt them; they shall lay
hands 011 the sick, and they shall re
cover." Jesus read from the,. Prophet Esaias
the following concerning his mission:
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he hath anointed me to preach
the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me
to heal (he broken hearted, to preach
deliverance to the captives, and recov
ering of sight to the blind, to set at
liberty them that are bruised."
This is a clear and comprehensive
declaration ot the mission of tho Christ,
We see from what has been quoted
that this mission, in its mighty entire
ty, was passed on to Jesus- disciples,
by them to be handed down to all na
tions. There is no escape from this
conclusion when we group together the
sayiugs of the Master and give them
their plain aud unmistakable- meaning.
It is a matter of history that for
three hundred years after the inaugur
ation of the Christian era the sick were
healed by the early Christians without
resort to- material means or remedies.
Gibboiu in his history of the Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire, treats
elaborately of this subject under the
head of the early Christians. He cjtes
instances of persons, some of them
well known Romans high in official
authority, who were healed of diseases
pronounced incurable by the then phy
sicians,, through the ministration of the
earl Christians. In this- be does not
stand alone', he is corroborated by
other authentic historians. Then there
are the writings of the early Christian
Fathers, the Ante-Nicine Fathers, as
they are called; they wrote exhaustive
ly upon this subject, going into minute
details as to the healing of the sick and
the raising of the dead by the early
Christians. Their writings constitute
a library of themselves. They are yet
extant. I am the possessor of a set of
them and have read them with much
interest and profit m the connection
here mentioned. It is matter of church
history also that a number of the
Christian sects in their earlier church
life, wero believers in the efficacy of
prayer alone to heal the sick, and
practiced such prayer. This is true of
the Waldenses, of the Moravians, of
the Huguenots, of the Friends or
Quakers, of the Baptists, and of the
Methodists. According to the life of
Martin Luther, he was a believer in
the power of prayer to heal sickness
and more or less practiced it. Ac
cording to the life of Johu Wesley, the
founder of Methodism, he for many
years was a firm believer in the direct
power of God to heal the sick, through
the efficacy of prayer, and practiced it
not only for himself, but for others.
An instance is related where he re
stored himself to health almost im
mediately from a severe fever which
had hung upon him for several days by
askiug God's direct help, and by re
volving in his mind and contemplating
some of the very scriptural passages to
which I have called your attention. It
is also matter of record in connection
with the Methodist Episcopal church
that when the bishops of that denomi
nation are ordained they arc instructed,
among other things, to heal the sick,
not as educated physicians, nor with
drugs and medicines, but by virtue of
their office.
1, Does this plain Biblical authority,
with its corroborative history, both
sacred aud secular, count for nothing
now? Has it np meaning for use to
day? Had it no meaning for those
preceding us? Have we a light to
wipe it all out, or to declare it obso
lete? Let us think a moment. If the
contention to which I have referred
was true, namely, that a part of Jesus'
great commandment has become ob
solete, then it is mere dead letter and
each of ua would have a right at plea
sure to take pen and ink and blot it
out. We surely have the same right
to blot it out physically that we have
to blot it out mentally. Christian
Scientists do not admit this right nor
seek to exercise it.
JESUS HEALING THE SICK.
A few words as to Jesus' healing of
the sick. Often when he healed a sick
person he said to him in substance:
"Go and sin no more, lest a worse
thing come unto you." When he
healed the man sick of the palsy he
said to him: "My sou, be of good
cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee." He
evidently recognized a connection be
tween some kind of sin this man had
been committing and the sickness which
was upon him, but he did not de
nounce the poor fellow because he was
sick as the result of his sins; he made
no threats of eternal punishment to
ward him, nor did he pronounce upon
him a verdict of incurability or of
death. He did nothing to frighten, but
eveiytbing to encourage him. He bade
him be of good cheer, aud at the same
time he pronounced his sins forgiven,
he declared his sickness healed, and
told him to arise, take up his bed and
go into his house, which he did, Iu
recognizing the fact that sin was the
cause of much of the sickness of his
time, to say the least, Jesus was only
recognizing that of which we are bound
to take notice today, if we take notice
of anything. Had we the power now,
and did we exercise it, to remove from
the world all the sickness and disease,
the sorrow, grief, woe, suffering and
death resulting from some kind of sin
ful, or wrongful, or foolish living, we
would thereby almost literally have
verified the possibility of doing the
works that Jesus said must be done by
those who believe 00. him. Take the
great sin, the stupendous folly, of in
temperance, the excessive use of intox
icating liquors; had we the power this
moment to remove from the world all
the sickness, disease, sorrow, grief, woe,
suffering, poverty and death resulting
from this one form of sinful or foolish
living, we would thereby almost have
transformed this eatth into u paradise.
I refer to these because they stand out
conspicuously. We know them to be
prolific sources of many kinds of sick
ness and all the consequences thereof.
There are other causes of a mental
character such as- mental worry or
stress, anxiety, discouragement and.
melancohlia, with their long traiu of
physical idsorder which our human
wisdom is pleased to call physical dis
eases. Take the business world; how
many men and women become sick.and
how many die as the result of business
worry and disappointment and discour
agement and defeat, and how many
seek -to escape from their sufferings
through suicide.
The Christian Scientist, in his anal
ysis of the causes of sickness, goes
further and tells you that there are yet
other causes, mental in origin, such as
anger and malice and hatred and jeal
ousy, and the spirit of revenge and
kindred mental qualities. We know
that people sometimes get sick and
sometimes die in fits of passion. These
other qualities harbored are uot less
harmful, and if they be not overcome,
sooner or later manifest themselves in
the form of so-called physical diseases.
Having thus briefly referred to the
causes of sickness and its consequences,
what shall we say of the real remedy
therefor? Can we hope for final and
radical healing of sickness and disease
resulting directly or indirectly from the
causes referred to, through any power
or efficacy contained in inanimate
drugs? Can the drug enter human
thought and regulate wrong conditions
' there? Can it destroy wrong mental
appetites and desires? If it could do
this it would be both powerful and in
telligent. If it could really heal under
such circumstances it would be the
very god that some honest people be
lieve it to be. And what shall we say
of surgery? Can the surgeon's knife
cut out wroug mental conditions or re
move wrong appetites and passions?
The utmost that is claimed for it i3
that it may in some cases remove the
physical effects of these. In saying
this, I wish to cast no reflections upou
the professions of medicine and sur
gery. From their standpoint they are
doing the best they can. Their pur
pose is right, for it is to alleviate human
suffering and stay the ravages of dis
eases; but allowing to those protessions
all the credit to which they can possi
bly be entitled, the question recurs,
aud to those who are at all awakened
to this great question, keeps recurring,
and like Banquo's ghost, will not down
at their bidding, can inert drugs and
medicines or the surgeon's knife really
heal diseases which are the result of
wrong thoughts, wrong mental condi
tions, or wrong habits of thinking?
In speaking of sin and its conse-
(Coutinued on page 7.)
r
1